Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The territory of the project is of great importance for its biodiversity and current fragility
Evidence B:Importat biodoversida area of the Andes recognized internationally. Even com endemics.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Area with high tons of soil carbon and biomass. Areas containing large amounts of carbon irretrievable can justify different conservation strategies.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The territory appears to be under significant influence of CARE and its partner organizations, although very exposed to the intervention of external groups
Evidence B:In 2009, the Central Ashaninka of the Ene River consulted all the Ashaninka communities tube results in Kametsa Asaike (Good Living). In 2015, the CARE performed again as consultation results were bred new communal statutes, dishess which include the participation of indigenous liderscos in territorial surveillance.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The description provided insufficient evidence or cultural indicators presents itself such as to estimate its relevance. However, the importance of the Ashaninka people in the Amazon territory is well known.
Evidence B:The Kametsa Asaike (Good Living), expectations related between maintaining tradition and opt for new practices such as the commitment to schooling, medical care in the clinics, and above all, the need production for a sale in the market. CARE’s work has focused sigueindo the Kametsa Asaike, which Inclui schools and bilingual intercultural approach and environmental conservation.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: It certainly is a very large area exposed to potential threats and external pressures well described in the proposal. The mention of recent large intervention trials not Ashaninka is an important example of the dangers to which the territory is exposed regularly.
Evidence B:Coca cultivation by migrants from other areas close to the Ashaninka communities land. Some communities are exposing their land to legal and illegal logging in exchange for goods and cash
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Evidence about the TDC mechanism allows a positive evaluation in policy implementation
Evidence B:Reconece it states the rights of indigenous peoples and there are policies to promote forest conservation. Exemplo The National Forest Conservation Program for Climate Change Mitigation (Forest Program) of the Ministry of the Environment (MINAM).
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: As mentioned, the Conditional Direct Transfers (TDC) seem a positive step. However, no concrete evidence of links is observed with local governments
Evidence B:Conservation agreements with indigenous communities access the Conditional Direct transfer mechanism (TDC) that provide economic incentives, as well as technical assistance.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Apparently, there are now a small number of recent projects in operation, although in the recent past there were projects with important financings.
Evidence B:The work done Kemito Jan has been recognized internationally by the United Nations Development Program, through the Equator Prize, as a sustainable business model that puts at the center of communities and their forests.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Apparently, there are few initiatives, and these rather focused on the production-trade area
Evidence B:Bono Development Impact Kemito Jan - the project results 1 - increasing productivity in cocoa farms; 2. Implementation of 200ha of agroforestry systems on existing farms. 3. Reduction of deforestation in five communities
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposed approach and actions to seem remarkably well aligned with issues of governance of the territory, conservation and sustainable management of natural resources.
Evidence B:Ashaninka territory protection, preserving and recovering forests and apyo deste the governance of indigenous people.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: It is advisable to consider and analyze how the relationship between threats regarding the occupation of land-shares for land titling-relationships with local and national governments will articulate
Evidence B:Activities and results are well defined, but it is necessary to better consider the impacts of the communities involved in forest clearing.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The organization looks solid and has important allies.
Evidence B:Activities and results are well defined, but it is necessary to consider better external pressures on indigenous territory, the role of government and justice institutions for the protection of the territory and the preservation of the environment, not least because the communities are involved in illegal logging.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: It is perfectly possible to achieve the results proposed for this project with the proposed financing, with good financial management.
Evidence B:Given that it is a local project, activities can be designed within this budget.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Their current budgets seem much diminished compared to those received a few years ago.
Evidence B:If, with Bono Project Development Impact Kemito Jan and the project, which result:
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: I consider that the figures provided by CARE require further review
Evidence B:Estimated area of restored land (Hectares) 1,000. Estimated area of landscapes / territories with improved practices (excluding protected areas) (Hectares) Around 230,000 hectares of indigenous territories. Total area under improved management (Hectares) 231,000
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: There is agreement among the indicators proposed
Evidence B:Sustenabilidad economic production of cocoa and coffee through Kemito Jan conservation of forests and indigenous culture.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: More information is required to determine the strengths of the project on sustainability
Evidence B:The project garantirá the conservation of the territory and conservation of biodversidad during its existence, the sustentabilid peo no long prazo
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The proposal articulates well with the national strategies described
Evidence B:The project is about the National Biodiversity Strategy, which increase the contribution of biodiversity to national development and the Meta: 2021 have been worth five ecosystem services, ensuring the integrity of ecosystems and respect for indigenous peoples involved
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: I think the focus on gender is placed more on participation and strengthening Ashaninka women in agricultural production of certain goods to market, and some political participation. Further analysis of gender relations can not appreciate inside Ashaninka society
Evidence B:There will be the empowerment of women in the project, but it is unclear whether there will be a stage.
exclusive spaces for training and discussion for women at the community level and at the level of indigenous organziaciones will be created. The project will also invest in training women in managing family finances, for the best use of economic resources, linking these with family priorities based on a baseline and analysis of socioeconomic gaps.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: No doubt the Indian Systems Monitoring and Self-Defense Committees are a key element in controlling the territory and biodiversity conservation
Evidence B:The fact that there are communities involved in illegal logging threatens the sustainability of the project and its multiplication.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:The project will be led by the indigenous organization and others in the territory with the support of an NGO.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The fact that Jan Kemito appears as a central component of this proposal suggests central leadership of CARE.
Evidence B:The proponent of the project has experience with issues of territorial governance, education and megaprojects and has leadership in the territory.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Partnerships with the Association of porductores Kemito Jan and Rainforest Foundation UK
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: CARE has no direct experience with CARE, but has had experience with international conventions
Evidence B:The proponent has already developed other projects, even with the support of the European Union, including the GEF.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: CARE has executed projects close to one million euros in the recent past
Evidence B:Project: Organic cocoa production in the Peruvian Amazon: sustainable livelihoods for indigenous families, Dración: 2010-2013, budget: £ 750,000 Scale ongoing projects and $ 1,000 to $ 10,000 a year Funding for the organization comes from at least three sources and the external audits are performed annually.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: RFFUK support CARE has allowed him to access experiences with international standards
Evidence B:The proponent has experience with GEF, but with fraca explicción.